Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

Kilrah_il writes "A German citizen was sued for copyright infringement because copyrighted material was downloaded through his network while he was on vacation. Although the court did not find him guilty of copyright infringement, he was fined for not having password-protected his network: 'Private users are obligated to check whether their wireless connection is adequately secured to the danger of unauthorized third parties abusing it to commit copyright violation,' the court said."

So does this mean if I accidentally leave our apartment unlocked one morning, someone breaks in, steals one of our daggers or guns, and commits a crime...that we could be charged for aiding a criminal?

If the court thinks you did it on purpose, then yes it does. If it was truly accidental then i think you could still get sued in civil court for negligence. There have been many cases of people not their securing firearms being successfully sued when someone dies as a result.

Ever wonder if legal jargon is really just magic spells being spoken aloud? Lawyers and judges could actually be modern-day warlocks and witches locked in an eternal battle for good and evil on the battlefield of the court!

Perhaps, but the comparison between prohibited copying and armed robbery of ships, which often involves murder, has been around so long enough that nobody outside the FSF bats an eye at calling it "piracy". The ship has sailed; the slope has slipped.

Completely different. Arguably during an accident a seatbelt can potentially keep the driver in his seat, and can keep the driver or passenger from becoming a missile and injuring someone else, as well as reducing stress on an already stressed public emergency system. THis is a far cry from requiring me to lock my door because someone might steal some cutlery and stab someone with a fork, or requiring me to lock down my router because someone might part in fron of my house and torrent Avatar

Would you be comfortable with a person storing their guns on their front porch?

The law may or may not protect you, so why not just protect yourself and end the debate?

Because some people think that leaving wi-fi open is an expression of goodwill... sharing. I do not mind if others use my wifi, I quite like people doing so. If someone starts using lots of it, I'll block them, at least temporarily. That hasn't happened yet. There are people living close to me who are on low incomes (and bad credit ratings), and will find it tough to fork out for (or get) stable internet access. I do not mind sharing mine.

In the UK, the Conservatives recently campaigned hugely about "big society". Laws that hold those responsible for sharing liable go directly against that theme. Alienation from local issues destroys communities, lack of cooperation locally destroys communities.

Almost every other example you gave are local ordinances designed to keep your neighbours' property values from plummeting, (and maybe reduce crime via "broken window theory"). Locking your door addresses none of them.

I do agree with much of everything else you say here, but I disagree that there's any relevant, reasonable precedent for the government legislating that you lock your home door (a behaviour that only appears common, in my experience, in cities and some large suburbs -- but then, I'm Canadian

I have no idea where to look for a key for my house. If I suddenly decided that the doors need to be locked, I would have to go to the hardware store, and buy some locks. There is almost always SOMEONE home, and no one even thinks of locking the doors when anyone leaves.

I guess that if someone wanted in, they could GET IN, lock or no lock. Which is worse - to find all our stuff gone, or to find all of our stuff gone, AND broken windows on a dark and stormy night?

I've always had a complete disregard for security. Admittedly, most of the stuff I've ever owned hasn't been worth all that much... I've had expensive bikes, a few decent cars, expensive computers, moniters & TV's etc. I've never owned my own home. I leave just about everything unlocked, all the time. Currently I live in a "good" area, but I lived in Leytonstone [wikipedia.org] and worked in Hackney [wikipedia.org] for a few years when I was younger, and kept the same principle throughout. My complete disregard for security has

This is more akin to having a car that everybody in the neighborhood shares. Therefore it's always open. Some creep takes the car, gets charged with speeding, and the owner gets jailtime for negligence. This law is basically discouraging charity & sharing. It's stupid and typical of a judge who should not be a judge.

There have been many cases of people not their securing firearms being successfully sued when someone dies as a result.

Yes, if you don't secure a firearm and one of your kids uses it to blow his friend's brains out then you are liable. But the GP talked about someone breaking in -- why should you be liable in that instance? It's your fault that a someone decided to break the law and steal your property?

I wish that everyone was held to the same standards as gun owners. As a random example, we just had a guy in our town charged with reckless endangerment (a misdemeanor) for putting a bullet through his neighbors apartment

It's your fault that a someone decided to break the law and steal your property?

If you haven't taken adequate steps to secure it, yes. If you leave broken glass all over your property and don't put up any warning signs, someone can trespass or break in and successfully sue you for damages. Not in criminal law, but in common law you typically have an obligation even with your own private property.

In reality you're probably not likely to get sued for having someone break in and steal your gun and commit a c

I'll add that the homeowner's liability for injuries to criminals who are trespassing and/or breaking in are quite different from one state to another. We don't all live in La-La-Land - errrr - I meant California. I read one story where a burglar hurt himself after falling through a roof, or a skylight, or some such. He successfully sued the homeowner, in California. In a more reasonable state, like Texas, the homeowner could have SHOT the SOB, and claimed that he was startled, and feared for his life.

Best thing for all concerned is, if you don't respect other's property, don't go to Texas. You'll get into serious trouble real quick. On the other hand, if you DO respect other's property, you should get along just fine. It isn't like people are being blown away without good reason, by law abiding citizens. Criminals, on the other hand, whether they be citizens or illegal aliens, have no problem blowing people away without good reason - and the gun laws that Texas DID have were relaxed to deal with tha

The ruling came after a musician, who the court did not identify, sued an Internet user whose wireless connection was used to illegally download a song which was subsequently offered on an online file sharing network.

and...

...but when was the last time you saw someone receive a criminal charge for an automobile accident that resulted in property damage and no personal injury?

Happens all the time. If it's deemed reckless is not an infraction, it

A few years ago I crashed into a light pole. I was charged with Wreck-less Driving and Damage to City Property. But I guess my county is a bit of a hardass when it comes to charging traffic bullshit. We're located right next door to Cook county (Chicagos county). They gotta prosecute something...

is that it often comes down to a failure to do right and a need to blame someone. If someone steals a gun and commits a crime with it, they should be 100% civilly responsible. Allowing the victim of the theft to be sued is nothing more than indulging the blood lust of the victim and their family who want anyone connected with it to pay dearly.

SO there is no such thing as negligence? As an example, if I am babysitting a neighbors 13 y/o daughter and allow her to go, alone, to a frat party and she get drunk and then raped, am I not at least partially responsible?

I disagree, if your house/apartment door is closed, there was no 'invitation' thus they broke the law, not you. If you have leave it wide open with a sign ' free beer party', and you don't take steps to at least close your bedroom door, then ya, you are negligent.

However that said, you can be sued in civil court for anything, by anyone.. doesn't mean its valid or you will lose but they can.

It's safe to say he didn't. If he had configured his router to not broadcast the SSID, then he would, legally (in most jurisdictions, I assume Germany is no different), have taken proactive steps to secure his network (even if they were token efforts) and we wouldn't have a story.

Virtually every security device can be circumvented, and as a result the question usually comes down to "Did you make an effort or not?" For much the same reason, DVD's CSS system was still considered an access control mechanism

The guy decides to really secure his network. He disables broadcasting the SSID, and implements WPA2 encryption. This, however, provides access only to a small non-Internet connected mini-network with no DHCP and one machine, identified by IP address only, which only responds (ie no pinging) to a specific IP address using the ports needed for an IPsec VPN. The VPN, in turn, uses 1024 bit blowfish encryption and requires a SecureID password to initiate the connection. The VPN provides access to the outside world, but requires you already know the IP addresses of the DNS server and default router, none of which are in an easily guessable netblock.

The system is also set up so any unauthorized activity results in the outside connection being dropped (ie any attempts to guess the passwords result in the wireless router shutting itself down. And, just to add that extra special extra layer of security, the owner switches off the entire system when he leaves to go on vacation.

So an elite hacker comes along and has access to the network within thirty seconds. How does he do it? How does he circumvent all these security measures?

Answer: he throws a brick through the window, enters the house, and HOOKS HIS LAPTOP UP TO THE DSL MODEM.

Um... Every book ever written on security? Name a security instrument. I'll show you how to circumvent it. It may not be easy, it may not be practical, it may not even be more than theoretical, but there's probably a way. The question is merely a matter of whether the data you're protecting is worth the effort required to get through your security. For instance there's a trivial way to break full disk encryption [xkcd.com], but most people won't use it due to it's violating a number of very serious laws. (Your porn collection may be excellent, but it isn't worth 25 to life)

Well, "not broadcasting" as in "not broadcasting its SSID", sure. "Not broadcasting" as in "Not emitting any RF signals in the 2.4, 3.6 or 5 GHz frequency bands", not so much, since that means the router is switched off.

So a non-SSID-broadcasting router is a gun shouting "I'm a gun!". An SSID-broadcasting router is a gun shouting "I'm a gun, and my serial number is...."

I'm still getting the sense we're not really addressing all aspects of this issue. Maybe if we reformulated this into a pizza analogy...

The court said that he wasn't found guilty for copyright infringement, which would be analogous in your example to being found guilty for aiding a criminal. You would be charged with failing to secure your residence, much in the same way that he was charged with failing to secure his wifi.

Not sure about the dagger, and IANAL, but I'm pretty sure that in most places in the US you could be, successfully, sued for not properly securing your firearms. It strikes me that leaving an apartment//home unlocked when you know you have a gun in it could be construed as reckless behavior. Owning a gun is a right, but you have an obligation to practice that right in a responsible manner.

It strikes me that leaving an apartment//home unlocked when you know you have a gun in it could be construed as reckless behavior. Owning a gun is a right, but you have an obligation to practice that right in a responsible manner.

Agreed. We have a gun safe for most of our firearms, as well as one of those mini-safes with the four-button combination lock under our bed.

My fiancee jokes that we don't need that one for home protection, as the the combination of what she looks like after being woken up and my breath upon waking, we already have deadly weapons:p

...except this situation is more like leaving your guns on the porch with a big sign saying "free guns".

The key thing here is that I don't have to go anywhere to see my neighbor'spoorly set up wireless network. I can see it from the comfort of my ownliving room and it might even interfere with any network I might want toset up.

This isn't just about "something in your own house". You broadcast it to everyone.

It's more like a magical gun safe that puts an unlocked door in every living room on your block.

But at what point do we draw the line? I love reading and posting on/. and my current job is IT, but my Master's is in Anthropology. If a hairy-knuckled liberal arts person like myself can crack WEP in a matter of minutes are we going to require that people use WPA? And once that becomes easier to crack are we going to require the use of the next iteration? Heck there are times when I leave my truck unlocked, I sure hope that if somebody hot-wired it and took it on a 4 state killing spree I wouldn't be

As a matter of fact, in most countries (and US states, I believe) you are required to adequately secure your guns. So if it's just lying around on the table in your unlocked home, you may well be liable. If the thieves have to break open your gun locker, you're not.

And that's pretty much what the court said. Turn on encryption and change the default password and you're fine.

As a matter of fact, in most countries (and US states, I believe) you are required to adequately secure your guns.

I live in one of the most anti-gun states in the union and there's no laws pertaining to gun storage on the books here. You could be charged with other crimes if you do something stupid (i.e: reckless endangerment if leave a gun lying around when you have kids in the house) but it's not a crime in of itself to leave a gun lying out in the open.

Such laws are one-size-fits-all solutions anyway. What's "adequately" secure? If you have kids or a mentally ill housemate then the guns need to be under your dir

Actually, most US states have very little to say about gun storage, mostly because proposed laws have been successfully recognized and opposed for what they are: incremental steps to paramount to prohibition.

So does this mean if I accidentally leave our apartment unlocked one morning, someone breaks in, steals one of our daggers or guns, and commits a crime...that we could be charged for aiding a criminal?

Actually, yes. At least in Canada, anyways. If you own a firearm in Canada, there are so many regulations surrounding proper storage and securing of that firearm that while you may not be charged with accessory with murder, you would find yourself in plenty of other hot water.

During our firearm safety course the instructor talked of a friend with a collection rivaling his (huge) that had the equivalent of a bank safe full of guns in his basement. He went on vacation, and while he was gone thieves broke into his house and apparently spent *days* breaking into the vault with a jackhammer and other tools. They finally cleaned him out.

When he returned home and reported the theft he was charged with improper storage of firearms. Their reasoning? Because he left the collection without someone to check on it while he was gone he wasn't taking adequate responsibility to ensure the guns didn't fall into the wrong hands.

Heavy fines and a firearms ownership ban were applied. This took place in Canada.

"'Private users are obligated to check whether their wireless connection is adequately secured to the danger of unauthorized third parties abusing it to commit copyright violation,' the court said."
What exactly do they mean by adequately secured? Can they fine us for using WEP or WPA instead of the latest and greatest?

No, the media industry's out of control. Maniacal copyright infringement suits are their current approach to profit maximisation, but saying that copyright law is the problem makes it seem like the media industry is innocently obeying an unjust law. They're not. If we fix copyright tort, they'll do something else. Maybe demonise indie music as some sex-and-drugs scene to discourage parents from letting their kids buy off-label music, or convince the press that homebrew games destroy the mainstream games industry. They've taken an unscrupulous approach to maximizing their ROI, and so fixing the laws they exploit is not enough. We've got to stop supporting them.

So, I guess now the German people are being expected to work for the benefit of the copyright lobby. This sounds like the tail wagging the dog -- first the government works for the industry's benefit, and then it starts to require the people it is supposed to represent to do the same.

I hope there is slightly more to this story than the summary suggests. It seems absurd unless they have a law against sharing your internet connection. I personally have an open guest network with no protection, but then so do every major company, all libraries, schools, the trains and even the busses here in copenhagen.

The actual judgement is a bit more level-headed than the/. summary makes it to be.

The judge essentially said you ought to have some minimum level of security, elst you're liable for damages, much like everything else (e.g. if you don't put the brakes on in your car and it starts to roll and crashes into something).

The standard requested is pretty much "turn on encryption and change the default password".

Most commentators agree that for home users, not much will change. Unless you're an idiot, you already have these things for your home network. The challenge will mostly be to hotels, Starbucks, etc. with their open hotspots.

Then you get fined if someone breaks the law using your connection. Do it enough and you'll probably get charged with aiding and abetting. Though IANAL, it seems obvious enough. If you want to be an ISP, then you have to keep records indicating who your customers are (even if they aren't paying anything) so that the criminal can be found. I'm not saying I agree with any of this, but it seems easy enough to understand, given our typical current legal structure (I'm assuming Germany isn't too terribly differe

The judge essentially said you ought to have some minimum level of security, elst you're liable for damages, much like everything else (e.g. if you don't put the brakes on in your car and it starts to roll and crashes into something).

Sorry, wrong car analogy. How about this one:

If your router is sitting loose at the edge of an open window, then wind blows and causes the curtain to move and drop the router through the window 10 stories falling on someone's head or car, you could be liable for damages, just like if the car didn't have brakes set in your analogy.

On the other hand, leaving your wifi access open is like leaving you car unlocked. So, now you are liable if your car is unlocked, someone gets in your car and starts copying your

how is that more level-headed? you're just defining the adequate security part from the summary with "turn on encryption and change the default password". your car analogy doesn't work either, if i have an open wifi spot it doesn't just go on a frenzy and download stuff, which is what you are suggesting.

the judgment here clearly means to say that an internet connections main purpose is to help you infringe on copyright. you won't get fined for sharing a fork with someone if that someone then goes to kill hi

While some of you slashdoters cannot even grasp what this means:You can leave your wifi open, you can download anything you want, and the maximal fine will be 100 EUR!I call that a big win where users would be sued up to 10.000 EUR for downloading/sharing music - this will put a dramatic lid on those things.

So, if this is how things are to be, I think that this guy should pass the buck to the manufacturer for not complying with local law. Such devices should be regulated in such a way that they cannot be sold to customers without ALREADY being secure out-of-the-box. Otherwise, I think that this should have no merit.

Maybe if this was extended to enforce a more responsible attitude for people leaving their PCs infected and sending out spam for months, I'd be all for it. Stupidity is no defence, so if you're irresponsible behaviour is causing misery for others, and potentially allowing a criminal offence to take place then you deserve to face charges.

Driving a car with no license, or instruction is an offence and whilst spamming thousands of people isn't actually dangerous, it affects more individuals.

Saying this, maybe wireless routers/modems shouldn't even have an option to operate in an open mode. Likewise, maybe ISPs shouldn't allow customers to send mail out on port 25 to random machines - just route it all through their own mail server. If a machine is sending a huge amount of mail, it's simple to block it until the user fixes their system. Surely it's not that fucking hard!

Someone go find the RIAA/MPAA or whatever the equivalent in Germany is, use their wifi (would WEP or WPA-TSK count as "adequately secured to the danger of unauthorized third parties abusing it to commit copyright violation,'?) And start downloading everything you can think of. Lets see if they sue themselves.

Free public Wi-Fi is one of the most important public services of the 21st century. It gives anyone who can come up with the $200 for a netbook the ability to access the sum of human knowledge. It allows people to communicate over long distances in many more ways that a simple voice conversation. Anyone who comes up with the money for an unlimited internet connection and jeopardizes some of his privacy (or some convenience, if he uses some kind of proxy/encryption) to let anyone access the internet without paying high fees to greedy monopolistic corporations is doing good for society. Saying that he's doing evil since he's also allowing copyright infringement is like saying cars are evil since you can use one to get away from a robbery. All technology can be used for good and evil, but the internet being freely available to the public does hundreds of times more good than it does evil.

Lets up the status even more. How about a public library that offers free wifi?

But assuming it is my responsibilitiy to detect/prevent/record the internet crimes of strangers in my area to allow the government to prosecute them, does that mean I am also legally required to put camers up all around my property to detect/prevent/record NON-internet related crimes?

Moron judges should be fired, regardless of which country they are from.

Serious case of misleading headline.... The court said: "If you have an open WIFI and someone uses it to fileshare copyright protected material, the owner of the rights may send you a cease and desist letter (effectively insisting that you secure your WIFI) and extract 100,- Euro from you for covering the fees of the legal process."

The user was not fined, he was not punished, he was not ordered to pay for the damages.

CU, Martin

P.S. Who wonders, that lawyers don't get the technical aspects right when the techies confuse the most elemental judical terms....

IANAL, and more specifically, IANAL in Germany, so my thinking might be off by several galaxies, but here goes anyway...

As far as I know, you cannot be fined unless you do something illegal. In other words, there _must_ be at least one law you have broken with your actions or lack of actions. The obvious question then: _is_ there a law in Germany demanding that you secure your WiFi? Or is some law being extended to cover this situation?

In my country laws are usually interpreted very strictly: if they mention (just for example) print media, the law is not usually assumed to include digital media as well. This is normally a good thing: actions/things that are not explicitly illegal are automatically legal.

The vast proportion of airports and hotels (increasingly cafe chains) in Europe have 'open' wireless networks that require browser authentication. You pump for an IP, are granted one, yet must authenticate in the browser (usually with a bite of your credit card) to get you through the gateway. Up until you authenticate you're a member of the LAN only. These APs usually have a EULA that prohibits such uses as the downloading of copyrighted material.

So, what specifically constitutes a Protected Network in the context of this new law?

2. The 100 euro is not for copyright infringement, but rather it seems that in Germany the reciever of a DMCA-like notice is liable for up to 100 euro unless they can either a) Point the blame to someone else or b) Pass some standard of having done everything reasonable to avoid damage. That's at least how I read the law [dejure.org]:

The key sentence here is "Soweit die Abmahnung berechtigt ist, kann der Ersatz der erforderlichen Aufwendungen verlangt werden." which translates to something like "When the warning is justified, compensation for the relevant expenses can be demanded." The second caps it to 100 euro for simple cases.

... if he practiced freedom of choice? Seriously, there's only so much I can take. If someone wants to be an idiot and weld a metal spike in their steering wheel, let natural selection run it's course.

In the US some areas charge you for having an accident. As in, you get into an auto wreck and all parties are charged a fee for emergency services.

So, in your scenario, your causing the police extra work by your negligence (just thinking out loud like a councilman looking for pennies in the couch would) and you should pay a penalty. Hell, we should be preemptive and apply a special tax to items you may own which thieves would want, a new desirable goods tax assessed yearly.

A cousin of mine served in the US Army and was stationed in Germany. He once received a citation because his car was unlocked. Yes, in Germany, there is a law stating you must lock your car, though I don't know if it applies while the care is secured in a garage.

Is there even a law that states that you must secure your WiFi? Because it sure as hell doesn't warn you of the danger of litigation for failure to secure on the equipment itself. In fact, surely Netgear are at risk of being sued now for providing the option to commit an illegal act by even allowing open WiFi on their device. And all those bars and coffee shops where they basically hand out the WiFi key to all and sundry for the cost of a drink - they've got as good as zero security, are they all liable to

What if they do the same as the coffee shops and libraries - set up a password and then just hand it out to everyone? (and why do they think it's okay that private individuals aren't allowed to share a service they pay for!)

If you set up a password and then hand it out to everyone you're basically inviting people to use your wifi. By doing that you're implicitly bearing the consequences of all your users' copyright violations.

Welcome to my world. My passport was stolen. I was "lucky this time", according to the officer, because they could have charged me with false identity terrorism aiding or somthing. I live in a democratic, western country and not in America and this almost happened to me. 'luckily the police officer was being nice'... jeez...

And to bring it back into the realm of copyright - are libraries responsible if they provide a photocopier for their users unless they personally check everything you copy to ensure fair use? Are Blockbusters responsible if someone borrows and copies a DVD because they failed to send one of their employees home with you to check how you used the disk? This seems an incredibly stupid development, to basically say if you're providing a public service, unless you can guarantee people aren't abusing that servic